Gaddis & McLaurin, Inc. v. Nichols

Ethridge, J.,

specifically concurring:

The second opinion of the Court in this case, on interlocutory appeal, held that Gaddis & McLaurin, Inc., was entitled to amend its bill of complaint and answer to the cross-bill of Nichols. Nichols v. Gaddis & McLaurin, Inc., 228 Miss. 1, 87 So. 2d 673 (1956). I dissented because I thought, and still think, that the pertinent issues were res judicata and had already been decided on the first appeal. 222 Miss. 207, 75 So. 2d 625 (1954).

Complainants on the first trial had a full hearing on their claims, met the burden of proof as to certain defendants, and…